Please keep this timeline strictly to those matter that directly relate to ORTHODOXY and NOT the "Church of England" or the "Roman Catholic Church" - unless, those actions are directly classified as Orthodox pre-Schism.

Suggested "Table of Contents"

The existing headings for the periods in the Table of Contents do not really apply that well for this subject here; I think it would give better perspective to frame the Timeline of Orthodoxy in Britain under the major periods native to British history as such. I have put together this suggested format for the eras:

Roman Britian (43-410)

Medieval Period (410-1485)

Early British Kingdoms: Era of Celtic Missionaries (410-597)

Anglo-Saxon England: Foundation of the English Orthodox Church (597-1066)

Viking Age (793-1066)

Anglo-Norman Britain: Latin Continental Ecclesiology (1066-1154)

High Middle Ages: Plantaganet Era (1154-1485)

Early Modern Era (1485-1707)

Tudor Era (1485-1603)

Elizabethan Era (1558-1603)

Stuart Age: Civil War and Revolution (1603-1714)

Jacobean Era (1603-1625)

Caroline Era (1625-1642)

Interregnum: Commonwealth of England (1649-1660)

English (Stuart) Restoration (1660-1689)

United Kingdom of Great Britian (1707-1801)

Georgian Era (1714-1837)

Modern Era

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1927)

Victorian Era (1837-1901)

Edwardian Era (1901-1910)

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1927-Present)

Some of the sub-era may be omitted perhaps, but all are recognized validly recognized names for periods in British history. I think doing it this way would provide a better historical context. Cheers, Angellight 888 18:15, May 25, 2009 (UTC)

since we have agreed, is it possible to remove this? Lol Vasiliki 06:04, May 26, 2009 (UTC)

Founding of English Orthodox church

Hey Chris, a challenge for you - Is it correct to have as a header the "founding of the eastern orhtodox church" as 597 when the first Bishop was ordained in 63AD? Vasiliki 06:04, May 26, 2009 (UTC)

The Introduction of Christianity went as far back as Aristobulus and Joseph of Ariamthea in the mid-first century, yes. But remember, the legalization of the faith in the Roman Empire (of which Britannia was a province) didn't occur until the Edict of Milan in 313. Britian experienced upheavel with the withdrawal of the Roman Empire in 410 and the Anglo-Saxon invasions shorlty thereafter. Its wasn't until the mission of St. Augustine of Canterbury in 597 AD that the church there was organized around the newly found See of Canterbury, and also in this period that the Synod of Whitby occured in 664, which led to the liturgical and administrative unification of the Church in England. However, in answer to your question, we can fine-tune any of the names for the eras; for example: "ROMAN BRITAIN: INTRODUCTION OF CHRISTIANITY" might be more to the point, and answer any ambiguities. What do you think?

I dont mind what you do. I was just curious because i wasnt sure what the difference is. Vasiliki 03:58, May 27, 2009 (UTC)

On a second note, without meaning to be hasty early on in the development of the article, I would add a humble suggestion at this point: that this article 1) still has many gaps in it, 2) requires cleanup (several areas of included text that should be removed or incorporated as date-type format eventually), 3) proof read, checked for accuracy by another party, and 4) edited and cleaned up by someone before we should call it complete or leave it. Just a modus operandi to consider. Again, any of the periods can be adjusted along the way. Cheers. Angellight 888 03:44, May 27, 2009 (UTC)

The article definately has gaps in it but if you recall I pointed out that i wanted to spend time adding the deaths of the Saints from Britain prior to proceeding towards adding historical dates (to keep the editing simple).

I havent abandoned the timeline, i have merely taken a step back since I noticed you were modifying it today and I just dont think its productive when two people work on an article at the same time.

Some of the dates I ahve added have come directly from the sources I have quoted at end of page. This is a question I have ... each source has its own claim to a date - even OrthodoxWiki articles contradict our timelines (at times). What is the best way to identify the appropriate date? I have no idea how to discern the difference between equally reliable sources.

I am happy to sit back and wait for you to do a pass/edit and then resume. I think if we know how to communicate well between each other then mistakes wont happen and we can stage the editing. I also spend a lot of time staying back after work these days to do my work so I am happy to take a few days break between edits ... its impossible to do this in a short period of time.